tv [untitled] July 22, 2012 2:30pm-3:00pm PDT
assumption. number two, and never looked at alternatives, and st. luke's needs to be bigger and more robust. it is currently in the development agreement that it is set up to fail. now, when we did our survey of the excelsior and the chinese residents live in there, one out of four were uninsured, and a lot of them travel 60 minutes to get to any health care services, and some people say they'd like going to chinatown, that is great, but let's make that a choice. let's make sure people have health care access in the southeast for all san franciscans. thank you. at supervisor: thank you.
next speaker. >> i retired last november. this hospital has always been the on mounted orphan. only under these damages for noncompetitive practices that they agreed to bring st. luke's into its fold, but they made decisions to close it. because of their nonprofit status, they created their blue ribbon panel that agreed with the need to rebuild st. luke's. this was already under way, and the skeletonized hospital without even a pediatric ward planned. st. luke's was supposed to be a spoke serving the hub, to use their analogy. st. luke's has served this community for 131 years as the only other hospital beside san francisco general. we are not talking about rebuilding another mcdonald's. this is vital to the health care
infrastructure for san francisco for perhaps the next 100 plus years, to have an emergency room capable of handling the unexpected. the reason for the rebuilding is seismic safety. we know from other expert testimony that loss of a hospital eir substantially increases morbidity and mortality, for all nearby communities where the wait times increase. think about the stroke victims, your child of an attack or your heart attack. unviable st. luke's is needed at san francisco. it is better that they admit a need for new management rather than close saint wheat. please forget the profit driven point of a 1% margin. should not the true purpose of the nonprofit before the benefit of the community? thank you.
president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i was a doctor until recently there. the core of the appeal of the environmental impact report is that the project objectives as put forth by our narrow -- by cpmc are narrow as opposed to looking what is best for san francisco. alternative three-a was an alternative. it was designed to fail. so what would a meaningful alternative look like? i yet talked to numerous doctors at st. wheat, listening to their ideas and what a viable and sustainable st. luke's would look like. having served on the blue ribbon
panel with the appropriate location and the population served, to us, this means a significantly larger hospital, focused around excellence as recommended by the blue-ribbon panel. by focusing on the centers of excellence in a community of, senior health, gynecology, and no intervention obstetric as recommended by the board, it allows us to begin to visualize what a vigorous and viable st. luke's hospital would look like, including specialty services that support these services, cardiology, pulmonary -- psychiatric care, vision care, things that do not need to be centralized. what we have is a flawed eir, again centered on the cpmc business plan. we need something that serves
the eastern part of san francisco and the greater good of all san francisco. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am a member of the positions organizing committee. this eir is totally inadequate because they are centralizing services at cathedral hill and keeping them out of the neighborhoods where it is really needed, and we need a mechanism to prevent that at the new st. luke's as well as to provide for the economic viability. it is cuts on tops of job losses leading to more uninsured, and it is making it harder to practice medicine based on patient needs and current standards. now we have more of the same. the county is allowing them to dictate that hospital or nothing. we need a broader range of
choices. the board must ensure they restore and maintain pediatric services at st. luke's, a nonprofit with $90 million per year in tax breaks, what they should do. that they maintained no services is an attempt to make the hospital look on necessary. their original idea was to replace the hospital. they need to commit to inpatient services and outpatient clinics that are properly funded in cooperation with local physicians and those not employed by cpmc, based solely on medical criteria. the pediatric department, we urgently need more pediatricians at st. luke's, and they are not hiring them. we already know about the terrible transportation issues. it is like they are trying to shoehorn all of the services they can into a pot --
impossibly small space, and they went ahead and filed unclear plans, so it is the supervisor's job to get everything it needed, not just the kind of money. they are paid very large salaries. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> we need affordable housing, and we are looking at the housing and travel in impact. you supervisors have hard questions about the adequacy of the studies done, and as someone who were stated they would low- income tenants, pretty much all
of them on public transit, and they have to walk to so many places, or they have to take buses because there are none in the tender my right now, and a lot of them are very afraid that when housing impacts, the new households coming in, where will all of these people be housed? the studies have not been adequate, and so we just urge you, supervisors, that you listen to your constituencies and say no to the cpmc project. thank you. president chiu: next speaker. >> my name is -- a resident, and i am a board member of the
filipino american community organization. i am spoken several times about why we should not approve the cpmc plant about serving the residents and the low-income communities. they are the lowest compared to other hospitals. they do not care to listen to the demands of our community, so i urge the board of supervisors to do this if they continue to ignore our demands. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> it
>> many people will have to look somewhere else. there is no somewhere else, actually, because they are full. also, we have the alternative if you could shut down st. luke's. where they can go. before you do anything, please reconsider, think about, are you going to support the cpmc or the people in south market for several generations? and they rely on st. luke's. thank you very much. >> thanks. next speaker? >> good evening fe, a supervisor
is. my name is laura scott. i are member of the cathedral hill neighbors association. i am a retired city planner and i am active in the labor movement in san francisco. i believe this eir does not give you as decisionmakers at a quick, accurate information on which to base a development agreement -- acequate, accurate information. and the project approvals for this project. experts city staff also lacked the needed staff, and i am sorry to say the neutrality they should have in this project. putting new as the decisionmakers between iraq and a hard place. -- a arock and a hard place.
i urge you to demand what you need and do not yet certified the eir. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i'm a lifelong union member. i am very pro union. with the cpmc and sutter is how they are using the union as a bargaining chip. that is totally wrong and they are playing of union people against other union people, etc. we are the small players. cmpc and sutter are the big players. they think they are above the government. there are many dangers to us in san francisco. i will not go over all of them because it will take forever. plus, a number of them have been brought up before. the height limits and increasing
the zoning. 100 feet. it is terrible. cathedral hill was too big to begin with, the hotel. and to have something monstrous like cpmc at van -- would be terrible. i went to sacred heart cathedral high school. it is a couple blocks away. it has and a part of the history of the city going back two centuries ago. i will not support cpmc if they are going to harm a high-school like sacred heart cathedral. so close. and it already suffers a great deal the dangers -- the kids there, over 1200 from the traffic -- and it will only be worse. i want you to think seriously about not supporting cpmc and
saving st. lukes. i see many people in grain. does the green represent money or does it represent life and growth for the city of san francisco? thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. let me ask if there are any other members of that wish to speak on behalf of the appellants, please line up now. thanks. >> good evening, supervisors. i am a resident of district 5 and a homeowner. i would like to ask those present who are residents and workers who find this eir in sufficient to stand. these are people who are not dependent on cpmc salaries. they are not business owners who are looking for additional business. they are residents who are thinking about what is good for
san francisco. and i know that is what is in your hearts, too. there are at least three deficiencies in this eir. sutter is planning a regional- wide project. and yet the eir only focuses on san francisco and does not take into account all of the trafficked. two, disaster planning. in the 1989 earthquake, i went down to the marino and tried to do my bit to pitch in. i can see that it is one thing to talk about services for the southeast, what about the southwest? what about the south half of san francisco? we need to have following up on the health services planning, comprehensive planning for san francisco, and push people who want to bring services to capitalize on san francisco's market, push them to provide what we need not just what they want to offer. third, housing.
imagine if the current van ness regulations on housing were kept for this. you think of that nice big building. think of four of those buildings, three of them being housing. with that not be great? it would be a great asset for san francisco to have that new housing. but it is not there. thank you. >> and final speaker on behalf of the appellants. >> good evening, supervisors. i am here on behalf of the national union of health care workers. we represent 750 service and maintenance employees of that tree cpmc campuses north of market street. i want to thank you for your attention to the difficult issues before you. and i want to try to simplify perhaps, oversimplify the choice for use specific to your ruling on the eir appeal. there really are two questions.
one is are there serious flaws in a eir? i think you have heard ample testimony that the answer is yes. there's a traffic analysis that includes incorrect factors and fails to ask critical questions. there is a housing analysis that is similarly lacking core data necessary to make a judgment whether the work force housing needs are being met appropriately in the project. there are narrow project objectives that to not look at a number of other, broader concerns of the city but take their cue from sutter and cpmc' s business plans. there is an unrealistic project alternative, 3a, that was set up to fail by possiting that st. luke's sits on the women's and children's hospital which makes no sense.
it is not a serious attempt to look at alternatives good for san francisco. are there sufficient overriding considerations to ignore these flaws? the answer is no. your colleagues and many of you and the room have participated in the land use committee hearings on a number of the items involved with the development agreement. what we have learned is that there are many health care needs for charity care, cost control that are not met. the need for permanent jobs going to residents are not met. housing and traffic the same. we thank you for your consideration and ask that you uphold the appeal. thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellants? seeing none, at this time, let's go to the city staff. i am not sure who will present on behalf of planning. why don't we get started? if we can turn on that mike.
>> good evening, president, members of the board. i am the planning department. i have with me a number of the department's staff who worked on this project. we are available to answer questions. i want to make and a doctorate comments and allow time for planning staff to respond to as much of the comments we heard today and yesterday at the land use committee hearing. i would like to remind the board and the public that this particular agenda item is the appeal of the final eir for the proposed california pacific medical center long-range plan. the planning commission certified the eri on april 26, 2012. the eir vacation is not an action to approve or disapprove the project and a vote to uphold the certification does not bind any subsequent votes or
disapprove or modify the project. the question therefore is, adequacy of the environmental document according to -- not merits of the project itself. once it is certified, the board will have the opportunity subsequently to consider other aspects of the project beyond environmental effects. this includes considering the development agreement. we know that a number of people disagree with some of our conclusions. disagreement and difference of opinions presented in the comments and responses document and that you heard from the public yesterday and today are sincere. the eir is not required to resolve those disagreements but to inform you about them and come to a reasonable conclusion supported by evidence. thie eir reports on all of these disagreements and differences of opinion. we believe our conclusions are appropriate and legally defensible based on the substantial evidence.
this eir was managed by senior staff, highly qualified with consultants, technical experts on transportation, air quality, a greenhouse gas emissions, under supervision of department staff with subject matter expertise. and reviewed by the city attorney. to the best of our ability, we believe the information and analysis in the eir are accurate and fully discloses all the potentially costing dividend environmental impacts of the project. to summarize the project, the cpmc is a multi-phase project to expand medical facilities and develop a 20-year framework for its existing medical campuses and for construction of a new medical campus in the city. it includes a near-term projects, including actions at st. luke's and davies campuses.
as well as long-term projects, including future actions at davies and pacific campuses which would commence after 2015 and analyzed at a program level. no near term or long term projects are proposed for the california campus. the eir also analyze five project alternatives. first, two foreseeable no project scenarios at st. luke's. one colluding closing the hospital tower and a two building an outpatient facility instead of the new hospital. the second alternative involved rebuilding, retrofitting before existing campuses and not building the cathedral hill campus. the third alternative involve reducing the amount of development at the campus and increasing the amount of development at the st. luke's campus. and the fourth alternative
involved reducing the amount of development at the cathedral hill campus and increasing the development at the california campus. alternative one had two sub alternatives. alternative to beer was a retrofit. and alternative tree was alternative three and alternative 3b. subsequently, the board received an appeal letter on may 16, 2012 from gloria smith. and a coalition of seven neighborhood groups. some comments in the appeal letter expressed opposition to the proposed project and concerns regarding on related health care and development issues. these comments to not raise questions about the accuracy of information in the final eir and would be a properly considered by the board of supervisors in its consideration of the proposed development agreement and other project approvals. but then not germane to the question at the heahand.
the main environmental issues relate primarily to the following -- scope of project objectives, and oedipus, range and feasibility of the eir alternatives. request for analysis of a modified version. adequacy of the eir's traffic analysis. the enforceability of the transportation demand management program. the adequacy of the health and population and employment analysis. air quality and greenhouse gas analysis. and regional setting of the project. the appeal letter for the most part raises issues similar to those already addressed in the final eir. staff responded to all of these issues and submitted the responses in a memo to the board on july 11. i would like to focus my remarks on some of the main issues raised in the appeal. first of all, it has been suggested that the range of
alternatives was artificially limited by the project objectives identified in the eir, which was thought by the appellants to be too near. on the contrary, it addressed are reasonable range of five different alternatives and determined that alternatives two, three a and 3b feasible and obtained most of the project initiatives. thus, the project objectives did not result in the failure to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives. impalas state -- appellants stats -- alternative 3a plus. it would increase the size of st. luke's campus and increase the size of cathedral campus and would include a different mix of services at st. luke's that was proposed under 3a. it would have similar environmental impacts as the alternative analyzed. it requires that the eir analyze
alternatives but does not require that eir analyze every possible variant. moreover, the environmental impacts associated with alternative 3a plus were analyzed by the environmental review of 3a. no notable reduction of the environmental impacts were found to be achieved under alternative 3a plus. decisionmakers can choose to adopt an alternative if they determine that to be feasible. with regard to the eir's discussion of jobs, the appellants in the original appeal challenged the use of 2001-2003 that showed that 49% of the employees live in san francisco. the planning department confirmed the three the cnr supplemental analysis, that the
survey data taken at the california pacific campuses remains a valid and in a proper predictor of future conditions because employment numbers at these campuses remained stable. appellants state the department 's reliance on city policies to meet health and demand rather than analyzing the impact of individual projects is inconsistent. the eir quantified the housing demand to be created under the proposed lrdp. it analyzed the impact as an individual project by comparing this demand to the protective health and capacity within the city. this is inappropriate measure for determining the significance of this impact. the eir use the adopting housing element in its analysis. further, the comments and responses document included additional analysis more recently adopted 2009 housing elements and the 2009 projections.
the original draft eir data were more conservative and the number of jobs and housing in san francisco. the mor recent 2009 document data contained the proportional share of growth in san francisco while adding and available supply of housing to accommodate new workers at cpmc's campuses. the projected growth total would fall within-- well within the cities projected growth plan. this methodology has been used by the city and other projects. appellants state the eir fails to consider the loss of produce the company -- contemplated housing along dennis avenue -- the venice avenue. however, the proposed cathedral was not assumed all plans were housing in the 1987 eir.
the vnap eir found the cathedral hill medical office building site available for housing. under the 2009 housing element, not of the cpmc cathedral hill sites were assumed to be available for residential development. wheelock at the efficacy of the -- we looked at the efficacy of the special use the district and whether or not it would be compromised due to the development of the new medical office projects on the cathedral hill campus. the 1987 vnap eir indicated that the future housing development potential within the area would total 2300 units. approximately 988 units of those have already been developed on 13